3 ms·
I had no intention of treading into the real-or-not quagmire. I thought I safeguarded myself against that with the concession that I consider belief in general
by inasmuch 5y ago
I had no intention of treading into the real-or-not quagmire. I thought I safeguarded myself against that with the concession that I consider belief in general science exactly that—a belief. But perhaps that was unclear.
The 'disproven' part was also deliberately parenthetical and only indirectly linked to religion, with the used notions of proof and veracity both subject to the aforementioned concession.
Forgive my defensive parsing here, but it's important to me that I don't present myself as someone who feels he 'knows the truth'. My intent was to say that I don't.
- prometheus76 5y agoWhat I was trying to point to, with a fumbling attempt was pointing to your idea of "scanning your mind for scientific data that might be wrong" and coming up empty, was that just the idea that scientific empiricism is the only or most reliable way of establishing what is "true" is actually a presupposition that is a result of the Enlightenment, and is not the basis for traditional societies when they are determining "how we know what we know" and "what is the hierarchy of meaning"? I was just trying to point out to you that you might be open-minded regarding what evidence you are willing to consider, but just he point that you consider evidence as a way of establishing truth is a presupposition that can, and should be examined.
- inasmuch 5y agoOoh, okay. I gotcha. Thanks for clarifying!